Welcome! You have accidentally reached the blog of a heteroclite follower of Jesus: dave wainscott. I'm
"pushing toward the unobvious" as I post thinkings/linkings
re: Scripture, church and culture. Hot topics include: temple tantrums, time travel, sexuality/spirituality, U2kklesia, role of the pastor, God-haunted music/art..and subversive videos like these.

"Trinity is the most comprehensive and integrative framework that we have for understanding and participating in the Christian life."

>and Capon's clever take (often comparing the Trinity to three Jewish guys in conversation):

"Before anything was made, it was all already done within the Trinity. The whole thing was accomplished before it started...Pure monotheism is dangerous. The doctrine of theTrinityembraces the paradox of mutuality in God himself without violating the unity of God—because it can only be presented as a paradox and a mystery. Paradox can take you on trips that religion can’t even buy a ticket for." link

>and Steve Seamands'most recent book, which allows us to see Trinity as practical theology

"The doctrine of the Trinity with its seeming logical contradiction that God is one being in three persons, invites those of us in ministry not to resolve the tension but to live with paradox….Approaching life and ministry as a mystery to be entered instead of a problem to be solved opens us to hidden meanings…beyond our categories and calculations”

1)"Theologian Kevin Giles..says that the Trinity 'is the model on which ecclesiology should be formulated. On this premise, the inner life of the Trinity provides a pattern, a model, an echo, or an icon of the Christian communal existence in the world.'

2)"William McLaughlin, an astrophysicist..., says..'The doctrine of the Trinity represents a revolutionary form of logic which is ideal for new forms of computer systems.'...Instead of one master control chip, a Trinity computer would have three...(such) would be adept at intuition... non hierarchical authority...and lateral thinking, otherwise known as fuzzy logic, where the solution to a problem lies outside the system being studied."-Adrian Berry, "Galileo and the Dolphins," 172-174.

Fill in the blanks in the two sentences below with your first instinct (or the most obvious popular answer), and then get back to me:

"Christians are too worldy; one of the main ways this is evidenced is by the way they_______________"

"The principal reason why the church has failed to make disciples of all nations is _____________________"

Of course, the "theologically correct" and conservagelical answers to #1 are:

they see the same movies non-Christians too, they dress like the world, they are lackadaiscal about church attendance, they don't witness enough etc etc yada yada.....

Of course, the "theologically correct" and conservagelical answers to #2 are:

they see the same movies non-Christians too, they dress like the world, they are lackadaiscal about church attendance, they don't witness enough etc etc yada yada.....

Which is why it was refreshing to hear Joseph D'Souza and Benedict Rogers, in "On the Side of the Angels" suggest that the answer to both is indeed the same, but the answer is:

justice.

Huh?

More specifically, they offer that the best answer to #1 is:

we react only after a disaster has occurred-and sometimes not even then. (23)

...and that the answer to #2 is:

the church itself has in so many ways failed to live and teach fully all that Christ commanded in (the)areas (of) racism, corruption, economic exploitation, colonization, caste discrimination, paternalism, dehumanization and the oppression of women through the sex trade and various other means (174)

All this really grinds against my training.Which is partly why all this is true.

As evangelical pastors in our mainline denomination, we often complained that all we heard about in pronouncements from headquarters were social justice issues. And we were most often right. But I am also sure that our reactionary mindset fostered in me a truncated gospel.

For years, we participated in the "International day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church."Amd we still do. There is great biblical precedent for such.Don't read me as soft here;when a Christian pastor friend of mine in Peru tells of having a gun in his face and being asked to deny Jesus, I cannot turn away.

But in recent years I have wondered how we cannot not also mention the persecutions and injustices against believers in other religions..

and believers in no religions?

Why can I turn away then?>

D'Souza (who lives in India, and relays firsthand accounts of persecution of the Dalit)and Roberts tackle this extremely well.

The story of how the line "we're one, but not the same" in U2's "One" came about; thatthese are the words Bono wrote in a note he wrote to Dalai Lama, respectfully declining an invitation to a meeting celebrating spiritual "sameness" always calls me back to center,

When the Dalai Lama was invited to speak in the Washington National Cathedral, Christians in the United States launched a protest campaign--mentioning nothing about the underlying suffering about the people in Tibet. There are indeed profound theological differences between Christianity and Buddhism, and certainly if the Dalai Lama were invited to conduct a religious ceremony within a specifically Christian context, there would be justifiable concerns about the synchronistic theology of his hosts .

But the manner in which we express those concerns, and the way we relate to other religious groups being oppressed is of critical importance.(125)

It is quote ironic that the two U2 songs most often categorized (by Christians) as being songs"about heaven" --"Where the Streets Have No Name" and "Walk On"---are indeed about heaven,but also about justice issues in (respectively)Africa and Myanmar. The radical "both-and" cannot be torn asunder. Such would be divorce, and do violence to the gospel.(See "Your favorite song about heaven is NOT "I Can Only Imagine")

The book is eminently practical: lots of real-life stories and examples of what one can do to live out a "mission as advocacy" worldview.

Several haunting case studies (ex. Why is it that of all Christians, the Pentecostals (a movement birthed in a prayer by a black man, a denomination formed in passion for racial inclusiveness and rights) was complicit in apartheid? p118-19) challenge and stretch us to fall back into line, and onto the side of the angels.

"While postmodernism is typically discussed in traditional book form--an edited volume with essays--the format of this book seeks to place the discussion in a form that is consistent with its content. Using the motif of the blog, A New Kind of Conversation is an experimental book that enters into this conversation with five evangelical leaders (Brian McLaren, Bruce Ellis Benson, Ellen Haroutunian, Mabiala Kenzon, and Myron Bradley Penner) acting as the primary bloggers."

A bit skeptical of the title (capitalizing on McLaren title similarity) and format at first, I really enjoyed the book and recommend it. Not just because the "bloggers" and "commenters" helpfully interact with each other..

...but because several times one of them suceeded wonderfully in the primary task of the book: helping us grasp what the postmodern shift means for the church.
I'll simply share some of my favorite moments where this happens
related to topics I believe are key to the shift:

"So often one hears Lyotard's famous summary of postmodernity as "incredulity toward metanarratives" as postmoderns aren't interested in any grand metanarrative at all. ..The Bible of course is a grand metanarrative. What many Christians are reacting against in postmodernity is not Lyotard's definition of postmodernity, but a neo-Lyotardism that takes this rather complex understanding of 'metanarrative' and simplifies it to meaning 'we must be suspicious of all grand stories.'..but let's get Lyotard right...(What he actually ) said is that postmodernity is ultimately skeptical when anybody presents a grand story and then sayts it is true because Reason proves it to be so."-Bob Robinson, p, 20

On simulacra, Penner nails it:

"North American evangelical subculture--with its televised programs and church services, its theme parks and bumper stickers, and like paraphernalia; and its ability to turn anything remotely related to Christianity into a consumer product--is waiting for a sustained sociological-theological anaylsis in terms of Baudrillard's categories as a nihilistic fixation on simulacra and hyperreality."(Mylon Bradley Penner, p.38)

I have also written much on biblolatry (here ),
but Penner says it more concisely and with a punch:

"We evangelicals often run perilously close to validating the charge from our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who find the Protestant emphasis on Scripture a form of 'bibliolatry.'
We need, in other words, a view of Scripture that captures and embodies the truth that'The Holy Scriptures are the highway signs: Christ is the way.'"
-Penner, p. 90

Finally on spiritual formation/education...
I recently taught (if that is the right word anymore...that is precisely the point) a course on leadership for Latin American Bibkle Instiutiute; we used Leonard Sweet's postmodern-sensitive "Summoned to Lead,"
and I allowed "experimental" final projects: instead of a typical research paper or final exam, I allowed more creative projects.
They excelled (photo). It beat spitting out answers crammed into short term memory onto an exam sheet,
Instead, we were greatly impacted (and will remember our "finals" the rest if our lives as we were exposed to holy art..one brother even wrote a song). This was spiritual formation,
and academic integrity.

Which brings us to Scot McKnight's comments in the book:

"there has come in our day a new understanding of education, which is in part much of what is going on in all spiritual formation perceptions by Christians, and this new understanding of education is more after a holistic telos. In other words, we are no longer permitted as professors to 'inform' students simply by 'lecturing' to them and then 'testing' to see if they have 'learned' what they should know. More and more, the outcome-based educational theory asks us to decribe what we want our students to be able to 'do' when they finish our course or our major or school, and then everything has to be shaped to develop these outcomes if we wish to be genuinely an educational institution.

(p.91).

Check out this book; it will be of great use..in 2006 (:
....and beyond.

Friday, December 26, 2008

"Anyhow, here’s a great word: apotrope . A commentator over at Edge of the West noted that much of American conservative speech (the blaming of the poor, for example) can be explained as apotropaic gestures, like making the sign of the cross to ward off harm.".-link, and HT to Beth for the tip on this blog

..makes me wonder how often we do this...in the name of Jesus, of course.

"If you look up the word 'entertain' in a dictionary, you'll find this definition: 'capturing and holding the attention for an extended period of time'. I don't know a preacher who doesn't want to do that." - Purpose Driven Church, p231.

I am that preacher. (:

I am not called to do that , and will refuse to try.

By "that," I mean not the "capture and hold attention"part.I work hard at that, you can even call me an entertainer.

I mean the "extended period of time" bit.God, deliver me from that.I prefer church as the Bible depicts it:wiki.When that happens, Jesus can "capture and hold their attention for an extended period of time."

I’ve met recently with a couple of friends who have left the local church and the faith as well. I love them, totally respect them, and listen hard to what they are saying. I’m interested in what they are reading and what they believe now. I’m fascinated by it. I think it is important for me to listen to what they believe and why. I think it is crucial to listen to what Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins are saying. I think it is necessary for me to listen to what science is saying. Evolutionists. Mystics. New Agers. Universalists. Syncretists. Neo-Gnostics. Everyone.

....You know, in the earliest church, the Fathers contested with people with differing views as though they were a diverse and dissenting part of the larger community. I think, for instance, Irenaeus, when he challenged the Gnostics, betrayed a humble deference toward them. At the earliest point there was no clear line of division that separated the “heretics” from the “orthodox”. This came later with the councils and creeds. They mingled together in the same communities and churches. I personally think it is important to work towards a clear theology. Faith seeks understanding. But I also believe it is important and even required by charity to permit all voices an audience and to see all people and opinions as typical of a diverse community striving towards love and health.

When you think of it, when Paul said in the Corinthian correspondence that one prophet should speak; then when another stands up to speak the first one should be quiet and sit down; and that the content of what they say is held up to scrutiny, discerned and judged by the community… wasn’t Paul implicitly giving room for heresy? The root of heresy literally means an opinion that is contrary to another. Later it came to mean a belief that is contrary to the orthodox doctrine or the most popularly held opinion. I think we need to listen to more apparently “heretical” views because I personally believe that much of what is popularly held as true is in fact false and needs to be challenged by opposing views.

"The church is not an enclave of refugees from the world; it is the sacrament of God's presence in the world by the Mystery of the incarnation. It's not supposed to look as little like the world as possible but as much like the world as it can manage. Otherwise, the world will never be able to recognize, in such a parochial culling of supposedly sinless humanity, anything even vaguely resembling its true face. It will just go on seeing in us the same old unforgiving face that already greets it in the mirror every morning. For the fellowship of the baptized is simply the world in all its sinfulness, dampened by the waters of forgiveness."-Robert Farrar Capon, The Astonished HeartRead more

Saturday, December 20, 2008

I am sure these two news videos from the Fresno Beehive below (article here)will get lots of plays and attention.

Naked women as commercials usually do.

I go through that intersection above nearly every day;somehow I missed these women.But you know I couldn't have if I had seen them.

That's the point.

(Editors note: I am sure some people think I am obsexxed and talk about sex too much on this blog. You need to know that the sexuality/spirituality connection is one..and only one...of six stated categories for this blog...and the one I likely post on least.So sorry if I offend you for the wrong reason, but one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in in church and culture is "You can't talk about sex in church."

It might be best if the church could at least "use" sex evangelistically in a healthy way!Can't we lean to appreciate and appropriate a creative, non-salacious approach...without unnecessary titillation(We all know why people go to the beach anyway!)?Maybe in doing so, by confessing and naming our starting point, we can subvert and convert our obsexxion with selling and seduction.. ...all with a holy sense of humor and honor:

Why let Adbusters have all the fun (their 'ad' below speaks volumes, and far more truth in one image than a thousand words by most of us preachers), and the corner on smacking satanic simulacra where it starts?

Our church has held up plenty of "free carwash" signs....the catch is they were actually free! (no money accepted).

We have yet to try asign that reads "topless carwash"..even if its one with a catch like this:

How about truth in advertising(or is that phrase always oxy the moronic?)

What to do with all this simulacra-erotica??

Elevate it.

We can only start where people are.

(Editor's note: Now of course we move into one of my six stated topics which has merited far more posts than sex ever has: U2. Just take a look at the wordcloud on the right: U2 is mentioned more than Jesus...uh, oh. Well, at least it wasn't sex that rated that high!!(:.....)

He's not a rabbi (?), but anyone writing a book called "BUYOLOGY: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy What We Buy" deserves to speak to the church, helping us "get" why we are in the shape we're in:

Lindstrom, a marketing guru who advises everyone from fast-food companies to drugmakers, partnered with Oxford scientists to conduct a three-year, $7 million study scanning the brains of 2,000 people while they were shown various marketing strategies. What they found surprised them. In one of the most startling examples, the researchers scanned brains while the subjects were exposed to images of popular brands and religious icons.

Lindstrom wrote: "The room went dark and the images began to flicker past: A bottle of Coca-Cola. The Pope. An iPod. A can of Red Bull. Rosary beads. A Ferrari sports car. The eBay logo. Mother Teresa. An American Express card. The BP sign. A photograph of children playing. The Microsoft logo."

When Lindstrom and the researchers analyzed the results, they noted that strong brands fired up activity in parts of the brain controlling memory, emotion and decision-making.

That was expected.

But then they compared those results with what happened when the subjects looked at religious images. To their surprise, "their brains registered the exact same patterns of activity," Lindstrom wrote. "Bottom line, there was no discernible difference between the way the subjects' brains reacted to powerful brands and the way they reacted to religious icons and figures."

This essentially means that when people line up outside Apple stores for the latest iPhone, they are not just hankering to get the latest gadget -- they are pretty much having a religious experience, too....LINK: How Marketing Tricks You, and How to Beat It

Maybe we can't avoid some semblance of selling Jesus.At least we are called to re-imagine how we image, icon, and (gulp), "brand" him...lensing and testing all our (horrors) church commercials and (semi-graven and projected) images through Scripture and Spirit.

We might even be able to bless actually talking about sex in church (he sarcastically said);if not hiring those two gals at the top of the page to promote a VBS or two (joke!)

How about "church ads" that admit and poke fun at our obsexxion with obsexxion,and then having named it..we can start dealing with itelevating itbringing it to Jesus , like everything else.

The catch is this could look really cheap and chessy.

That's the risk we take embracing simulacra to break the back of simulacra-olatry.

As usual, and as we have established in this series, it's best to do all this with song.

A much lesser known,and highly misunderstood when known ("It's glorifying the watching of sexy images"),U2 song, "Baby Face"tackles all this head on.

Another U2 song"Even Better Than the Real Thing,"does this well, as Wathrall has well discussed.Here the band entered simulacra to elevate it.

I appreciate Brian McLaren's attempt to offer the church some worship songs that subvert cmmercialism and indivdulalism, but we just can't sing 'em in our church.Maybe he should start writing about sex.

In this scene from the classic film "sex lies and videotape," the line arises,"Why do these tapes all have women's names on them?":

The truth is:Every 'tape' (as in 'tapes' we play in our mind)that nearly every man brings to church with him,has women's names on them....even if he's never seen a pornographic image.Pornography always drives technology,and everything we do is technology,

When we make images, we often sexualize themWhen we watch images, we often worship them.

When we make images, we often worship them.When we worship iamges, we often sexualize them.

We worship golden calves/calfs.

Who will deliver us fom this body of death/sex?(on the death/sex connection)

Jesus, of course.If only we'd get in the elevator instead of denying the elevator exists.

We have to let people in on the ground floor; that is, where they are.

It's true of any building: Anyone who enters elsewhere is likely entering illegally.

People come to "church" with sex on the brain, brainswashed by a week of ads.Let them come: sexed up, simulcara-ed up, icons and all:

An icon isn’t just a symbolic representation of the real; it’s a simulation. The sacred image is a “visible theology,” incarnating a portion of the spiritual reality residing behind or beyond the image. Eventually the icon, instead of pointing beyond itself to the fullness of the real, itself became the focus of attention as the repository of holiness. So the statue replaces the saint, the cathedral replaces heaven, the priest replaces Christ, the church-state alliance replaces the Kingdom of God. Eventually all of life takes place within a reality made up entirely of simulacra, a reality in which the images permanently take the place of the originals. The presence of God can be withdrawn entirely without affecting the real power of the simulacra to fascinate and to dominate. Even the imagination becomes dominated by the simulacra: the saint is like the statues, the kingdom is like the church, Jesus is like the priest. The order is reversed between the original reality and its simulation. The simulacra become hyperreal, serving as the model for the real.

In Baudrillard’s perhaps most important writing, “The Precession of Simulacra”[71] he discusses “the simulacrum of divinity” asking, “What becomes of divinity when it reveals itself in icons, when it is multiplied in simulacra?”When divinity reveals itself in images, multiple images, an alteration of some kind takes place.“Does it remain the supreme authority, simply incarnated in images as a visible theology?”Or does something else happen, something more dislodging and drastic?When divinity is revealed in icons, “is it volatized into simulacra which alone deploy their pomp and power of fascination—the visible machinery of icons being substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God?”Is God, as Idea, lost in his own iconography?Baudrillard says this is the very issue that frightened the Iconoclasts in the debate of their day.

Baudrillard:

“This is precisely what was feared by the Iconoclasts, whose millennial quarrel is still with us today. This is precisely because they predicted this omnipotence of simulacra, the faculty simulacra have of effacing God from the conscience of man, and the destructive, annihilating truth that they allow to appear – that deep down God never existed, that only the simulacrum ever existed, even that God himself was never anything but his own simulacrum – from this came the urge to destroy the images. If they had believed that these images only obfuscated or masked the Platonic Idea of God, there would have been no reason to destroy them. One can live with the idea of distorted truth. But their metaphysical despair came from the idea that the image didn’t conceal anything at all.”Link: The Divine Irreference of ImagesPosted by ktismatic

In a delightful article about the song "Yahweh," Karen Lindell offers:

"But the lines I listen to over and over again are the following plea/prayer, which in my mind I'm singing to U2 as well as to Yahweh/God."link

It's no wonder she calls such a transaction "Elevate and uplift."

Who is talking to who in some "spiritual songs"?

God to us?Us to God?The singer to us?Us to the singer?

Maybe the pronouns in truly elevating sings are flexible enough to address all the above.

Who is the "you/You" in "With or Without You"?Who is calling who 'gorgeous' in the Violet Burning song of that name?

Recall Wathrall's chapter, excerpted in part 3 of this series:

It's very tempting to understand U2's exemplary postmodern song (on which, in good postmodern fashion, I shall isolate and focus on here), "Even Better Than the Real Thing," as a celebration of the very postmodern condition Baudillard characterizes as the triumph of the simulacra. How else are we to understand the song's oft-repeated eponymous chorus--but as an embrace (whether ironic or not) of a world were we come to prefer surfaces to depths, images to reality, sex to love,the fake to the genuine...There is no way around it. That is precisely the uncircumventable risk U2 took.....If one insists on hearing the song as addressed to a specific lover,then it seems to celebrate sex above love. However, when these same lyrics are heard as addressed to an audience, specifically a live audience, the meaning of these words is radically realigned: Now the implication is U2's relation to the audience is "even better than the real thing," not in the simulcratriumphalizing sense.......but in a profound sense of communal love which is "even better" than genine personal love..-meralizing from thein the Symoosium, by ents ense....Heard in this communal register, the erotic meaning of the lyric, "I'm gonna make you sing" has when...adressed to a partucular lover becomes transformed, elevated into a celebration of communal singing as an ecstatic experience that transcends even the feeling of real love between individualslink

U2's "Yahweh" is a prayer unlike any I grew up with as a Catholic. I've hailed Mary and talked to that hallowed father named "Art" in heaven endless times. Usually, I was just reciting words I'd memorized but didn't understand.

But:

Take this soulStranded in some skin and bonesTake this soul and make it sing.

I take these lines literally. For the past 20 years, I have suffered from anorexia. I've recovered and relapsed countless times, including six long stays in eating-disorder treatment centers, so I truly have been stranded in skin and bones, without much of a soul, flesh or anything that was a sign of life.

Anorexia, like alcoholism, drug abuse, overeating or any addiction, is a way to numb out and not feel anything, whether it's pain, joy or something in between.

But you can't listen to U2's music and not feel.

I fear that one can listen to much church music and not feel.

If so, we miss the elevator completely;and stay in the simulacra that we came to a worship gathering to shed.

"Well, this year we might be forced under duress to celebrate the feast of Jesus’ humble birth with honesty! Our economic meltdown is showing for all to see what our real gods have been. It is not the Lord of Israel or his Son that we love, nearly as much as we do our limitless growth, our right to empire, our actual obligation to consume, and our sense of entitlement to this clearly limited planet.'

The Advent Conspiracy has been a helpful tool to encourage our churchtribe to detox from commercialism of Christmas .

As subversive as the Conspiracy may seem, everyone knows intuitively that it is simply Christians calling us back to Christian sanity.

That's all needed and good.

But maybe it's too Christian to work(:

Sometimes the most compelling appeals back, are actually are those that partner with, or even originate from, for lack of better terms, non-Christian tribes.

Examples:

>The amazing Richard Rohr (linked often on blogs like this), a Catholic,
asks "Is Christmas Christian" in a Jewish magazine, Tikkun ("A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement"), He confesses up front, "As a Franciscan priest, I think I have the right to ask that question. Frankly, it is much easier to ask in a non-Christian owned magazine!"

Though Talen does not call himself a Christian, he says that Reverend Billy is not a parody of a preacher, but a real preacher; he describes his church's spiritual message as "put the Odd back in God."

Each year, Reverend Billy and his choir attends and performs at the Burning Man festival in Nevada.

Frankly, we must confess that it was likely our founder, St. Francis (1182-1226), who began to make Christmas the sentimental celebration that it has become, although his intention was never at all in the direction it has taken. He was the great lover of poverty and simplicity, and would be aghast at the consumer- and group-defining feast that Christmas has become. He merely replicated the drama of the stable with live animals and music. For Francis and the early Franciscans, “incarnation was already redemption,” and the feast of Christmas said that God was saying yes to humanity in the enfleshment of his Son in our midst. If that were true, then all questions of inherent dignity, worthiness, and belovedness were resolved once and forever—and for everything that was human, material, physical, and in the whole of creation. That’s why Francis liked animals and nature, praising the sun, moon, and stars, like some New Ager from California. It was all good and chosen and beautiful if God came among us “as Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). But groups need and create their identity symbols, and the celebration of Christmas became the big one for Christian Europe, just as Jewish people need Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and Muslims need Ramadan and pilgrimage. The trouble is that the meaning became group-defining instead of life-transforming. As we say today, it got “off message”! It was no longer God’s choice of the whole, but God’s choice of us! (In fairness, most religions make the same mistake at lower levels of transformation). At those lower levels of civil religion or any religion as a “belonging system,” the original meaning is always lost and often even morphs into its exact opposite. Strange and sad, isn’t it? In this case, the self-emptying of God into humble and poor humanity (Philippians 2:7) became an excuse for us to fill, consume, dominate, use, and spend at staggering levels for ourselves. In fact, the days leading up to December 25 are the economic engine around which the entire business economy measures itself in Christian-influenced countries. One might think that the fasting of Ramadan and Yom Kippur might have been a much clearer act of solidarity with the actual mystery celebrated.

Ouch and amen. And thank you.

And probably no surprise that Rohr notes:

"In Christian circles, when I call these false gods into question, I am invariably criticized on other grounds of heresy and church protocols, almost so we do not have to look at what our real loyalties have been and are."

Hmm..maybe Christ is calling Christians to spend more time out of "Christian circles," where its easier for God to communicate his subversion of simulacra. At Christmastime, it is good to get out of bounded setism, so that maybe together, along with some wonderful Jews, non-Christian pastors, and even some prophetic atheists...we can "put Christ back in Christmas." (:

Why let Adbusters have all the fun....and do all the Kingdom work without us?

Michael Pritzl: "When I read the Bible, I find I relate more to the sinners than I do to the saints."

Paul Raushenbush: "Sometimes intra-faith dialogue is much harder than interfaith."
So what can be done..as we saints and aints collaborate?
Can we conspire to steal Advent back?
That last line of couse is a reference to Bono's famous introduction of U2's cover of "Helter Skelter":

"This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles, we're
stealing it back."

As in:

"This (Advent) is season Christians stole from Christ, we (Christians and non-Christians) are stealing it back (by simply doing what Jesus would do at Christmastime!)"

Or better yet, as Rohr changes the agent of the stealing, and ends his article with real reality:

Maybe our humble Jesus is stealing our idols from us, and inviting us back into his Bethlehem stable.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

"When i read the Bible, i find i relate more to the sinners than i do to the saints,"he said.

Is that OK?Is that as it should be(as long as it is understood as it should be?)?

Watch this clip of The Violet Burning's classic "Song of the Harlot."

If it doesn't move you at all, that's OK.But you may be on the wrong blog (try a site that can't offend you, like this one).

I have been overwhelmed by this song/praying with it since its first appearance in 1992.Thanks to Diane for the original tip: I might not even be alive without this band;(even though they almost killed me once ..see this).On a snowy day in Chicago, as the first Gulf War was breaking out, Diane handed me a cassette, suggesting I might like this new band.

To say she was right is a huge understatement. Every day since then has been somehow tethered to that day.

Oh, by the way, this song (inevitably) includes the "w" word:the whore at Your feet."

Again, that is as it should be,if you interpret it as it was meant to be.

Actually, we should pay no attention to the big image on the church screen!Pay every attention to the real broken man who tried to project a big image.He's not really a "very bad man,"...but it may not be a good thing to do.

The E-Bay Atheist, when visiting churches, couldn't help but notice that whenever a church projected the preacher's image on a screen, a congregation member watched him or her on the screen....even when he or she was out from behind the pulpit and standing inches of them; even talking to them!

"I believe certain technologies preclude incarnational ministry. And the reason I believe that is because God became embodied in Jesus. And embodiment means human physical touch; presence. And there are certain technologies that disembody us, like video."

"Everything is spiritual" is good theology (See the Rob Bell videos by this title here. It's good TV, if not quite Zoo TV)and duels dualism.

I would venture that music is the primary means of
overcoming simulacratic (and socratic) nature of our times and church.
Only then will we hear and feel the need to pray God yanks us out of our commercialism and complacency.

religious (Our only real enemy, the one who came to "steal, kill and destroy" in the context of John 10:10 is not the devil...he is nowhere mentioned in that section, no matter what we preachers have told you...but the religious person/false teacher.)

All three need to be refused and defused. Maybe we can get started by reading (singing along to in full MacPhisto drag):

might suggest that a Spanish mindset inherently "gets" that religion lies;
and that holy simulacra can lead us to the One who leads us into all truth.

The well known playful pun on the word 'papa':

--"pope" and/or "potato"--

may be telling that Sapir and Whorf were right.

One more helpful Spanish connection

At their worst, U2 comes off with bombastic pretension. At their best, they achieve what very few artists in any genre can: they create work with a sustained intensity that transforms the particular into the universal. U2 has that rare ability to communicate what the late Spanish writer, Frederico Garcia Lorca called 'duende'; that "mysterious power which everyone senses and no philosopher explains" (In Search of Duende, 1998, New Directions.)

"I have heard an old master guitarist say: 'Duende is not in the throat; duende surges up from the soles of the feet.' Which means it is not a matter of ability, but of real live form; of blood; of ancient culture; of creative action."

Searching for the duende in the music of U2 may seem like the ultimate form of sycophancy or pretension, but as Miles Davis once so elegantly riffed, so what? No other band from the past two decades has so consistently given listeners reason to believe in the transcendental power of rock 'n' roll. U2 has the primacy of duende's "creative action" to thank for it.

..Lorca believed duende recreated familiar forms:

"The duende's arrival always means a radical change in forms. It brings to old
Planes unknown feelings of freshness, with the quality of something newly created, like a miracle, and it produces an almost religious enthusiasm."

...Few other bands come close to these dizzy heights. "Sometimes" is pure duende.

Lorca also stated "with duende it is easier to love and understand, and one can be sure of being loved and understood." U2 acknowledges that "tonight", as in other moments, weakness may overcome strength, but that's OK- everyone has those moments. It's in this realization that "Sometimes" crosses from the particular to the universal, cutting deep into the heart's core to pull out an emotional response that has nothing to do with Bono's father, but everything to do with our shared vulnerability as fragile living beings.

Music of this caliber and class feels as primal as shelter and food. U2 is keeping duende alive in their sound. All we can do is listen. by David Kootnikoff ,link

Twice the writer observed U2's movement from particular into universal, as characteristic of duende. You may remember that Wathrall noted this same progression (and its opposite) about the band and found it characteristic of post-simulacra elevation.
Maybe they're the same thing:

It's very tempting to understand U2's exemplary postmodern song (on which, in good postmodern fashion, I shall isolate and focus on here), "Even Better Than the Real Thing," as a celebration of the very postmodern condition Baudillard characterizes as the triumph of the simulacra.....but heard in this communal register, the erotic meaning of the lyric, "I'm gonna make you sing" has when...addressed to a particular lover becomes transformed, elevated into a celebration of communal singing as an ecstatic experience that transcends even the feeling of real love between individuals (This universalization of love-by which U2 seeks to transmute the entire audience into a belived--works, as Plato decribes in The Symposium by generalizing from the particular; it is thus striking that Bono sometimes performs the same gesture in reverse; by bringing a particular audience member on the stage to sing to her personally, as a particularization of the general audience he seeks to reach through her.With the very idea of an esctatic experience transcending personal love, we tread, I would suggest, into the territory of the holy.....Christianity itself was born out of such a fundamental attunement of universal love....without imposing borders.(91-93)

Simulacra, at its best , its most "real"," its most prophetic, should be embodied musically and metaphorically (see "Music as Metaphor for Emotion.', and the amazing prayer by Paul McCartney:"Music is what we do, and we give our music to Your service, Lord. On this day, use us.' )

Somehow the issue of television/video is central to simulacra at its worst, and must be tackled on its own turf and terms.

It may be inevitable that to subvert and convert simulacra's insanity, one must risk losing our (supposed) sanity by entering its world; even coming close to "letting it squeeze you into its mold. " No redemption without incarnation, which calls for "holy fools."

U2, of course, did all three in the 1990s.The medium was the message/massage.Yes, they read McLuhan and the Bible to prepare for their tour.They could only tell us to not watch more TV by going on TV to tell us to watch more TV.

The ironic is not often irenic.It is risky business indeed.

"But you haven't come all the way out here to watch TV now, have you?,"Bono asked audiences, as he tossed the channel surfer and introduced the band's ode to simulacra (below)..Yet he knew that many in the crowd obviously had,while many wise ones have grasped the rabbinic "fourth level" and actually got the prophetic point that they should watch less TV, but only fully grasped and grappled with the point by watching it.

Iconclasm by/on TV.

Madness..but madness which saves from madness by its being musical simulacra."What music appeals to in us it is difficult to know; what we do know is that music reaches a zone so deep that madness itself cannot penetrate there." (Cioran)

ZOO TV was essentially a religious and prophetic message,but they had to take it to the most (obviously!)receptive venue to true religious and prophetic messages: "secular stadiums".

It wouldn't have played in church...

For a few reasons (it would be seduction, a "preacher stealing hearts..for love of money," etc.)Neal Postman, in his seminal "Amusing Ourselves To Death," which apparently U2 also read(as did Roger Waters, see this) is quoted at length below. Did he even give U2...with reservation, his blessing on the medium and message of ZOO TV?:

"Entertainment is the supra-ideology of all discourse on television. No matter what is depicted or what point of view ..the overarching assumption is that it is there for yor entertainment..I do not say categorically that it is impossible to use television as a carrier of coherent langauge or thought in process....After all, it is not unheard of that a format will occassionally go against teh bias ofa medium (91)

Most Americans, including preachers, have difficulty accepting the truth… that not all forms of discourse can be converted from one medium to another... without changing its meaning or value.”...

"Though it may be un-American to say it, not everything is televisible. Or to put it more precisely, what is televised is transformed from what it was to something else, which may or may not preserve its former essence..."

"To come to the point, there are several characteristics of television and its surround that converge to make authentic religious experience impossible. The first has to do with the fact that there is no way to consecrate the space in which a television show is experienced. It is an essential condition of any traditional religious service that the space in which it is conducted must be invested with some measure of sacrality."

"Moreover, the television screen itself has a strong bias toward a psychology of secularism. The screen is so saturated with our memories of profane events, so deeply associated with the commercial and entertainment worlds that it is difficult for it to be recreated as a frame for sacred events. Among other things, the viewer is at all times aware that a flick of the switch will produce a different and secular event on the screen - a hockey game, a commercial, a cartoon."

"..I believe I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether."

"..The spectacle we find in true religions has as its purpose enchantment, not entertainment. The distinction is critical. By endowing things with magic, enchantment is the means through which we may gain access to sacredness. Entertainment is the means through which we distance ourselves from it."

"..Television is, after all, a form of graven imagery far more alluring than a golden calf. I suspect (though I have no external evidence of it) that Catholic objections to Bishop Fulton Sheen’s theatrical performances on television (of several years back) sprang from the impression that viewers were misdirecting their devotions, away from God and toward Bishop Sheen, whose piercing eyes, awesome cape and stately tones were as close a resemblance to a deity as charisma allows."

b)"Translation is betrayal"Which is it?Yes.Eugene Peterson, in "Eat This Book," is behind both quotes; and I am behind him suggesting they are both right."A" is actually a quote Peterson includes from Franz Rosenzweig: "Every translation is a messianic act, which brings redemption nearer." (p.119) ..The quote in context here...

"B," in context: "An old canard that sooner or later gets introduced into discussions of translation is 'You, a translator? Traitor!' Translation is betrayal. All translation is inherently mistranslation. Each language is unique."Viola! All translation is both messianic and betrayal.Kind of like life.In fact, life is translation. LINK

We risk much (betraying Messiah!) in even attempting translation,yet we risk much more (!?) in refusing to be messianic..even when it's messy.

3)Weigh the words of Gregor T. Goethals below, who like U2, is often ten years ahead of her time (1990):

"Those who take part in this revolution will be called upon to play dual roles as symbol makers and users, as well as symbol destroyers --iconifiers and inconclasts."

To effectively don "dual roles" without becoming dualistic is the need of the times.

" Those who take part in this revolution... will live both within and without Christian faith. As iconifiers, they will understand their power to give visible form o invisible faith. Some may venure into an unhated sea in search of more aduqte symbols for our time. Alongside iconifers are beliveers that no single myth encompasses all...Sensitive to the potential of myth to distort, they must at times become daring iconclasts.""The Golden Calf: Images, Religion and The Making of Meaning"

I recently had to submit a self-assesment paper of my teaching in the Degree Completion Program of Fresno Pacific University. Until now, I hadn't connected my task as teacher with simulacra, iconifier and iconclast..but as Postman has a whole book onTeaching As a Subversive Activity...

how can it not relate (apologies for repetition of the Peterson quote above):

"Wow, you are obviously a genius and a great teacher...

....the material was way above my head!”

I am sure they meant it as a compliment!

But no one is a genius or great teacher who leaves the supposed learnees learning nothing…except the lie that the teacher is a great teacher because the content was over the students’ heads!

That encounter, several years ago, came after my teaching an advanced course for Christian leaders. Since then, I have wrestled and worked with my approach to teaching; seeking to creatively and consistently make difficult material accessible.

I am not sure I want to…or need to…hear either clause of that sentence again.I have been honored, though, to hear from my FPU students remarks like:

“Thank you for explaining and presenting that so well; it was engaging and made me feel like I could learn anything!”

Now, that is a compliment. THEY feel like the genius!

Since I am not…

Central to my philosophy of teaching is that I always have much to learn from the students, and from the almost tangible “third party” relationship that emerges at unpredictable moments in the mix. One may call it “trialogue” or dialectic. I simply call myself blessed to be in the room—let alone at the lectern--as the atmosphere becomes charged and kairotic; and “aha!” moments arise. It becomes a community hermeneutic; better yet all that Turner had in mind by ‘communitas.’ Such almost feels like open source wiki-teaching, and akin to what Jacob Loewen coined “Listening with The Third Ear.”

But these “mystical” moments happen more naturally and often as I intentionally internalize my material beforehand, so the teaching event appears effortless (which it occasionally even is!) and noteless (even when it is not); as I prayerfully and carefully arrange the flow, and craft inductive analogies to bring the content into focus …and refuse to let it float helplessly over their heads.

As a singer said of concerts where familiar material is being presented,

“The hard part is making it look spontaneous.”

I have found that is also the fun part; and the parcel that allows the students to feel like, learn like, and believe in their abilities (not just mine) like…well, the geniuses they just might be.

That is why, in addition to more “obvious” classics (like “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”), my ever-developing pedagogy is fed and formed by books like “Orbiting the Giant Hairball,” and “Freakonomics,” which stretch me into thinking parabolically:

“The greatest thing by far is to be master of analogy....it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars.”(Poetics, 1459 a 5-8, "The Basic Works of Aristotle")

If Jesus "never opened his mouth once without speaking an analogy-metaphor-parable," (Matt 13:34-35)...perhaps our task is nothing less, as well. Especially as a teacher called to represent and re-present Kingdom teachings.

I am learning to not judge too prematurely apparent lack of attention in class; specifically when it is related to students on the computer. Sure, they may well be surfing their MySpace….but more than likely they are learning as natives to the new culture do: through multitasking. They are likely calling up complementary information, a concordance to clarify the Scripture at hand, or an article, author, or image online that I have mentioned. Earl Creps (“Off-Road Disciplines: Spiritual Adventures of Missional Leaders”) has even concluded that when he speaks at college conferences, “if they are not texting, they are not listening.”That line was worth the price of the book; though it almost lost/cost me."As a result, when speaking to millenial audiences, I now request that they text at least one time during my presentation, asking only that the message pertain to our subject in some way." (48)No, I haven’t adopted that method (:

Other weaknesses would revolve around my speaking too rapidly, and unintentionally leaving gaps in logic or history; sometimes forgetting how many gaps I need to full in, when some students arrive with little biblical knowledge.

As far as assessment/grading, I realize I can "err" on the side of grace; if I recognize hard work and intrinsic intent. I seek to cultivate self-awareness and fairness in grading by comparing notes with other teachers.

The issues that arise out of the students grasping of the Green/Baker response paper on models of the atonement, for example, come to mind. Some students are even in tears thinking about the paper it is all new and overwhelming territory. Early on, one of my co-teachers lamented that inevitably some don’t even turn in the paper. So, it has been affirming to realize that all my students so far have been turning in not only attempts, but exceptional ones. I attribute this to the extended lecture time devoted to the material, which can empower and cheerlead the students on….if I take wholly/holy advantage of that crucial and creative time.

I was honored when a veteran teacher who I was co-teaching with, said to me at the break, “You probably know you’re good….but you are really good.”

Thank God my prayers are sometimes answered; that meant far more than hearing that I came off as some genius who couldn’t connect.

In conclusion, as affirming to my call, and the abilities and gifts of the students, my adjunct instruction at FPU has been to date, I am in awe that any of us even tackles the thrilling and terrifying task of teaching (especially theological teaching, in light of the sobering gulp of James 3:1) at all. But to paraphrase Neo (from “The Matrix”),

“Of course it’s impossible; of course no one has ever done this before….

…that’s why it’s going to work.”

Teaching can indeed wonderfully work.

Even at the risk of accidentally betraying the Messiah.

Huh?

Two quotes about teaching…well, about translation, which may well be the same thing:

a)"Translation is messianic"

b)"Translation is betrayal"

Which is it?

Yes.

Eugene Peterson, in "Eat This Book," is behind both quotes; and I am behind him suggesting they are both right.

"A" is actually a quote Peterson includes from Franz Rosenzweig: "Every translation is a messianic act, which brings redemption nearer." (p.119)

"B," in context: "An old canard that sooner or later gets introduced into discussions of translation is 'You, a translator? Traitor!' Translation is betrayal. All translation is inherently mistranslation. Each language is unique."(170)

Viola! All translation is both messianic and betrayal.

Kind of like life.

In fact, life is translation.

Life, then is teaching.

I realize, of course, that these are reductionistic jumps, and betraying “translations.”

But I believe enough in the Messiah; and his genius, to humbly and confidently continue in the task.

Dumb disclaimer:

It should go without saying...but i wouldn't want it to... that since this blog is a Spiritaneous place to throw out thoughts/feelings/articles "in process," it does not represent any of the fine institutions you see by my profile that I am affiliated with (Heck, it may not even represent me! (:........). The blog is merely an attempt to subvert subversion and "push toward the unobvious" (Thanks, Tim N. for that phrase) on the six hot topics listed at the top of the page....Welcome, engage it, and don't be offended (for the wrong reason, anyway!)